Quality improvement in neurology: Multiple sclerosis quality measures: Executive summaryAuthor Response

Neurology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 86 (14) ◽  
pp. 1361-1361
Author(s):  
Gavin V. McDonnell ◽  
Amy Bennett ◽  
Alexander Rae-Grant ◽  
Christopher Bever
Neurology ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 85 (21) ◽  
pp. 1904-1908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Rae-Grant ◽  
Amy Bennett ◽  
Amy E. Sanders ◽  
Michael Phipps ◽  
Eric Cheng ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. E1-E12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) eliminated the flawed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) act formula – a longstanding crucial issue of concern for health care providers and Medicare beneficiaries. MACRA also included a quality improvement program entitled, “The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS.” The proposed rule of MIPS sought to streamline existing federal quality efforts and therefore linked 4 distinct programs into one. Three existing programs, meaningful use (MU), Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), valuebased payment (VBP) system were merged with the addition of Clinical Improvement Activity category. The proposed rule also changed the name of MU to Advancing Care Information, or ACI. ACI contributes to 25% of composite score of the four programs, PQRS contributes 50% of the composite score, while VBP system, which deals with resource use or cost, contributes to 10% of the composite score. The newest category, Improvement Activities or IA, contributes 15% to the composite score. The proposed rule also created what it called a design incentive that drives movement to delivery system reform principles with the inclusion of Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs). Following the release of the proposed rule, the medical community, as well as Congress, provided substantial input to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),expressing their concern. American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) focused on 3 important aspects: delay the implementation, provide a 3-month performance period, and provide ability to submit meaningful quality measures in a timely and economic manner. The final rule accepted many of the comments from various organizations, including several of those specifically emphasized by ASIPP, with acceptance of 3-month reporting period, as well as the ability to submit non-MIPS measures to improve real quality and make the system meaningful. CMS also provided a mechanism for physicians to avoid penalties for non-reporting with reporting of just a single patient. In summary, CMS has provided substantial flexibility with mechanisms to avoid penalties, reporting for 90 continuous days, increasing the low volume threshold, changing the reporting burden and data thresholds and, finally, coordination between performance categories. The final rule has made MIPS more meaningful with bonuses for exceptional performance, the ability to report for 90 days, and to report on 50% of the patients in 2017 and 60% of the patients in 2018. The final rule also reduced the quality measures to 6, including only one outcome or high priority measure with elimination of cross cutting measure requirement. In addition, the final rule reduced the burden of ACI, improved the coordination of performance, reduced improvement activities burden from 60 points to 40 points, and finally improved coordination between performance categories. Multiple concerns remain regarding the reduction in scoring for quality improvement in future years, increase in proportion of MIPS scoring for resource use utilizing flawed, claims based methodology and the continuation of the disproportionate importance of ACI, an expensive program that can be onerous for providers which in many ways has not lived up to its promise. Key words: Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, merit-based incentive payment system, quality performance measures, resource use, improvement activities, advancing care information performance category


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
JoAnna K Leyenaar ◽  
Christine B Andrews ◽  
Emily R Tyksinski ◽  
Eric Biondi ◽  
Kavita Parikh ◽  
...  

BackgroundEmergency medicine and paediatric hospital medicine physicians each provide a portion of the initial clinical care for the majority of hospitalised children in the USA. While these disciplines share goals to increase quality of care, there are scant data describing their collaboration. Our national, multihospital learning collaborative, which aimed to increase narrow-spectrum antibiotic prescribing for paediatric community-acquired pneumonia, provided an opportunity to examine factors influencing the success of quality improvement efforts across these two clinical departments.ObjectiveTo identify barriers to and facilitators of interdepartmental quality improvement implementation, with a particular focus on increasing narrow-spectrum antibiotic use in the emergency department and inpatient settings for children hospitalised with pneumonia.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods design, analysing interviews, written reports and quality measures. To describe hospital characteristics and quality measures, we calculated medians/IQRs for continuous variables, frequencies for categorical variables and Pearson correlation coefficients. We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews by phone with collaborative site leaders; interviews were transcribed verbatim and, with progress reports, analysed using a general inductive approach.Results47 US-based hospitals were included in this analysis. Qualitative analysis of 35 interview transcripts and 142 written reports yielded eight inter-related domains that facilitated successful interdepartmental quality improvement: (1) hospital leadership and support, (2) quality improvement champions, (3) evidence supporting the intervention, (4) national health system influences, (5) collaborative culture, (6) departments’ structure and resources, (7) quality improvement implementation strategies and (8) interdepartmental relationships.ConclusionsThe conceptual framework presented here may be used to identify hospitals’ strengths and potential barriers to successful implementation of quality improvement efforts across clinical departments.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 205521731881373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Claire Simon ◽  
Afif Hentati ◽  
Susan Rubin ◽  
Tiffani Franada ◽  
Darryck Maurer ◽  
...  

Background Many physicians enter data into the electronic medical record (EMR) as unstructured free text and not as discrete data, making it challenging to use for quality improvement or research initiatives. Objectives The objective of this research paper was to develop and implement a structured clinical documentation support (SCDS) toolkit within the EMR to facilitate quality initiatives and practice-based research in a multiple sclerosis (MS) practice. Methods We built customized EMR toolkits to capture standardized data at office visits. Content was determined through physician consensus on necessary elements to support best practices in treating patients with demyelinating disorders. We also developed CDS tools and best practice advisories within the toolkits to alert physicians when a quality improvement opportunity exists, including enrollment into our DNA biobanking study at the point of care. Results We have used the toolkit to evaluate 541 MS patients in our clinic and begun collecting longitudinal data on patients who return for annual visits. We provide a description and example screenshots of our toolkits, and a brief description of our cohort to date. Conclusions The EMR can be effectively structured to standardize MS clinic office visits, capture data, and support quality improvement and practice-based research initiatives at the point of care.


2014 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 558-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Germaine Odenheimer ◽  
Soo Borson ◽  
Amy E. Sanders ◽  
Rebecca J. Swain-Eng ◽  
Helen H. Kyomen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document